Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133488)	3/25/2001 10:55:55 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 769667

Kevin: "Clearly, for example, if the Islamic followers proposed a nationwide ban on pork, that would be 'imposing' their dogma on others." No, their view is not imposed on us until our elected represntatives pass a law imposing a nation wide ban on pork. Laws far sillier that that have been proposed and passed in this country. Such a law will not pass in the current climate and would not be constitutional if it did. "However, to me it is equally as clear when the Christians impose their idea of marriage on others. Even if it clearly stated in the Bible that marriage is between an man and woman, how does that apply to other groups who do not follow the teachings of the Bible? If two men or two women are commited to each other, why shouldn't they enjoy the spiritual and legal advantages of marriage? This is another example of one religious group 'imposing' their ideals on others." Again. Christians cannot impose their idea of marriage. It is our elected officials who do this. Marriage has been regulated by governments in all societies whether Christian or not for thousands of years. This is a traditional area regulated by the state and I see nothing wrong with Christians or other relgious groups trying to influence laws or proposed laws. In all of recorded history, I know of no society that has defined marriage as being between other than men and women. This is the case whether or not they are christian societies. If you believe we should have laws regulating the relationships between people for gays and lesbians, you are free to argue that position. Why shouldn't people whose beliefs come from their religions. Little joe

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133488)	3/26/2001 9:20:17 PM
From: rich4eagle	Respond to of 769667

Kevin, a wonderful response. I am not opposed to religion at all, I am however strongly opposed to a majority view religion opinion bullying all the people to get with it or else!

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133488)	3/27/2001 11:42:39 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"If two men or two women are commited to each other, why shouldn't they enjoy the spiritual and legal advantages of marriage? This is another example of one religious group 'imposing' their ideals on others" Can you see that this cuts both ways? I look at it more like the gay community is pushing their views (that a marriage between two men or women is normal) on the rest of us. I am not from the religious right, but it offends me that two gay lovers would have the same standing in society that a married hetro couple has. I believe that these benefits are more the result in assisting people in raising families, which is not a natural function (forget religion) for two men or two women. Here's a question. What if two men really liked each other and were roommates for 10 years, but had not sexual desires for each other? Should they get married for the benefits? If so, why should a company be responsible for providing this? Scott